General discussion


Two reports reporting on polar bears and Global Warming.Which one is right?

By sleepin'dawg ·

Time to separate the wheat from the chaff; which report is right??? they can't both be right nor can both be wrong; so which is it???

Bet we're going to hear the tree huggers, or should I say bear huggers, spewing and sputtering about this one. I wonder what Neil's comments will be?

Dawg ]:)

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

All the spring bulb growers up north

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Two reports reporting on ...

are having a major panic. Daffodils et al flowering while there is still glut from those damn southerner's efforts.
Apparently the price is very low, compared to what they expected and they are losing money big style.

Collapse -

The one that is right is ...

by drowningnotwaving In reply to Two reports reporting on ...

... the one you want to be right.

And either interpretation could (and of course, no doubt "would", according to the individual) be correct.

Collapse -

This one is right

by maxwell edison In reply to Two reports reporting on ...

If you want to believe it, that is.

Polar bears are a potentially threatened species living in the circumpolar north. They are animals which know no boundaries. They pad across the ice from Russia to Alaska, from Canada to Greenland and onto Norway's Svalbard archipelago. No adequate census exists on which to base a worldwide population estimate, but biologists use a working figure of 20,000 to 25,000 bears with about sixty percent of those living in Canada.

Here's something else that is right:

People will form their conclusion, and then work backwards looking for justification and/or wording to support that conclusion.

Collapse -

Here's something else that's true

by maxwell edison In reply to Two reports reporting on ...

People who study such things are paid to do it.

But who pays them, and why does it continue? If a person has a financial interest in something, shouldn't that either disqualify that person and/or place a cloud of suspicion over that person's motives? After all, nobody believes "big business" or "big oil", and they discount what they say. Why shouldn't the same apply across the board?

Related Discussions

Related Forums